Copyright... Patent... It's All The Same To The World's Third-Largest News Agency

from the patent-that-catchphrase,-yo dept

While we realize that the intricacies of IP law (and its often-attendant ridiculousness) can be rather difficult for the average, uninterested person to parse, it's really not asking too much to expect large international news agencies to make an effort to get the terminology right.

As you recall, Kim Dotcom recently announced he holds a patent for two-factor authentication, which he then waved in the direction of other internet titans like Twitter and Google, promising not to sue in exchange for contributions to his legal defense fund.

Congratulations, AFP. The headline sounds like Facebook itself wrote it, using machine learning to gather IP-related flotsam from the feeds of millions of teenagers, each one bragging about trademarking their copyright on some catchy phrase they misheard on Twitter ("Be careful talking when you have a mouthful of glass") and regurgitating its findings in 40-pt font across the top of Raw Story's piped-in news selection.

The story reiterates the "copyright" claim in the opening paragraph.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said Thursday he was considering taking legal action against tech giants such as Twitter, Google and Facebook for infringing copyright on a security measure he invented.

Then it quotes Dotcom tweeting about his patent and even remarks on the fact that Kim posted a patent approved in 2000 as proof. But, even with multiple chances to rescue this story from the unfortunate headline, AFP continues down its chosen path.

Dotcom said he had never sought to enforce copyright on his invention but was now reconsidering in light of the US case accusing him of masterminding massive online piracy through his now-defunct Megaupload file-sharing site.

Now, the hypothetical teens used above can be excused their (hypothetical) ignorance. But a news agency, especially one of AFP's size and longevity? Not a chance. It's especially inexcusable when AFP seems to know the correct terminology when its suing Google for linking to its stories or suing a photographer whose photographs it used without permission. (No, you read that last part right.)

Perhaps AFP truly doesn't understand the definitions and limitations of various IP protections. It certainly doesn't seem to be too well-informed in the linked stories. Maybe AFP views all IP terms as interchangable. It may be striving to know just enough to be dangerous, but to date, it only seems to have gathered enough knowledge to injure itself.

Re: Steal... sharing... all the same at Techdirt.

Re: Re: Steal... sharing... all the same at Techdirt.

If enough people believe it to be true, the difference is largely irrelevant for practical terms.

I don't blame the AFP, as much as I blame the entertainment industry. For years they've been conflating ideas and terminology as part of their "education" (and what they mean by "education" everyone else defines as disinformation), and getting the government to go along with them.

Given one of the key targets of these "education" programs has been news agencies, it really isn't all that hard to see how they can often get things wrong (after all, who would understand IP rules better than the people who rely on them for their livlihood, right?). Hell, even Adam Savage, whom Techdirt has written about before for his serious interest in IP matters, recently got some of the terminology wrong.

YOU are an ass hat

Wow....

*facepalms* Jesus AFP, do the fucking research before posting shit like this. What, did they not read the actual tweet? Did you fire all your high-quality journalists or something?

Still not sure if Dotcom was serious or trolling with the patent claim (which is so overly broad it's completely absurd), but he seems to be up to his old tricks: saying something outrageous and then watching the established media make a fool of themselves.

Re: Re:

It absolutely is a nuance, and it is only your obsession with it and lack of empathy that makes you think this is somehow common knowledge. Meet some people who aren't in your private circlejerk sometime.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

It most certainly is not a nuance. There are no "subtle difference" between copyright, patent, and trademark. They are all broad, defined subsets of IP law. It's like saying someone doesn't understand the "nuances of government" for getting India, the US, and the UK mixed up because all three are democracies.

I don't expect everyone to understand the distinctions of IP law (and if everyone did, there'd be no real reason to write about it), but I do expect people who write about such things professionally to get their facts right. Just as I would expect them to do if they were informing me about maritime law

Re: Re:

Yes, only experts should be able to report on things. That way nobody would ever make a mistake.

If you want to do a better job, DO A BETTER JOB. Making a federal case about every little mistake made by any of the 7 billion other people on the earth is not helping, it's just bitching.

If you took all the energy you spend bitching about how wrong everybody else is and channeled it into, I dunno, actually changing something, you might have an effect. Or you would at least gain some sorely-needed appreciation for why things are hard to change in the first place.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

If I made an offhand comment about flotsam in an unrelated post and it turned out I meant jetsam, I'd call that a minor mistake. If I was writing a news article specifically about an international dispute over abandoned shipping cargo, I'd look up the damn words. And the distinction between copyright and patents is far less nuanced than that.

This is like writing an article about baseball and referring to runs as touchdowns. Hey, not everyone is obsessed with every minute detail of sports, right?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

OK, but I have an experiment for you. Apply for a job at a major news agency and tell the editor interviewing you that you don't think factual errors about points of law are a big deal. Then berate him for not hiring you.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The reality, of course, is that minor factual errors that slip through from time to time are not a big deal. Especially ones that are only going to be noticed by experts in a particular field.

So while that editor is going to appear to be very concerned about any error, the reality is that shit happens, the editor knows it, and tries to balance accuracy with every other one of 25 concerns she has all day. Sometimes accuracy doesn't win.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You clearly have a very low standard for accuracy.

Also, I wonder what it is exactly that you read news for, if not to educate yourself. The issue is not how many people catch the error, it's how many people walk away misinformed. Copyright and patents are a specialty but hardly one that is cut off from the general public -- the idea that you "patent an invention" is common knowledge and many individuals apply for patents; billions of people see large prominent copyright notices displayed every time they post a photo on Facebook; things like the Pinterest copyright dispute, or the patent clashes between large tech companies, make it onto the evening news regularly these days. The majority of people now have a passing familiarity, at least, with these concepts.

The fact that you think it's not a big deal for the world's third-largest news agency to leave them so badly misinformed about a major distinction of law just shows that you have very low standards for knowledge and comprehension. Anyone familiar with the basics of copyright or even a skewed version thereof -- which these days includes anyone who has *gone to high school* -- now has a completely incorrect understanding of Dotcom's actions, such that any who are interested and attempt to research more are going to find themselves immediately confused, and any who attempted to express even simple opinions about what's happening or might happen is going to sound like a fool.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said Thursday he was considering taking legal action against tech giants such as Twitter, Google and Facebook for murdering a security measure he invented.

Dotcom said he had never sought to enforce murder charges on his invention but was now reconsidering in light of the US case accusing him of masterminding massive online piracy through his now-defunct Megaupload file-sharing site.

Copyright law is in Title 17, Patent law is in title 35, while federal laws against murder are in title 18. If AJ gets to count the number of judges who agreed or disagreed with the eventual outcome of SonyCorp vs Universal then I think it's fair to say that murder laws are closer to copyright laws because the titles are closer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

well maybe if you spent less time molesting children AC, these issues qould be clearer to you. I don't know if you actually molest children, but I'm in a hurry and can't be bothered to check facts, and I'm only human after all, so it's close enough that it doesnt matter. Pretty sure it's true and besides, it would only be noticed by experts anyway, so I can just publish and let the minor errors go.

Re: Re: Re:

Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the quality of journalism is shitty these days.

If you can't be bothered to do a quick search for intellectual property on FUCKING WIKIPEDIA as a quick reference check, especially since it identifies copyright and patents as two completely separate types of IP in the last sentence of the first paragraph on the wikipage, then you deserve to literally be thrown out on your ass from any respectable news organization for such a blatantly obvious screw-up.

Re: Re:

Re:

The difference between copyright and patents is about of the same magnitude as the difference between UDP and TCP, that is to say, anyone that wanted to seriously discuss matters regarding such things would not be able to confuse one for the other, as the differences between them are non-trivial.

Confusing one for the other reveals total lack of fact checking or knowledge on the subject.

A news agency, whose job is to - supposedly - report on facts cannot be allowed to make such a mistake. They are dead wrong and thus should be called out for it.

Re: Re:

Re:

All these comments clearly show how desperate some people are to shut down any conversation that might educate people about IP issues. You don't want people to really understand this stuff because then people might also begin to understand the incredible damage being done in the name of "protecting artists". Pointing out a significant error like this is shouted down as being nitpicking. "Nothing to see here, move along!" It's hilariously inept but it highlights the creeping desperation on the part of copyright maximilists who see the public PR battle being steadily lost.

Not as huge a bummer as the Boston Court story on AP (who wasn't even the original writer. However, this is not as trivial a distrinction as many make it out to be. I can see conflating copyright and trademarks since copyright is used as an insurrance or even substitude in trademark cases, but patents are almost completely opposite of patents in the world of IPR and most people know that.

In this case it is probably a random journo who got the story to write up and he/she just tried to wing it instead of fact-checking. A complete no-go for journalists, but in todays rushed writing where a lot of random people without an education in journalism are far, far better at relaying information.

The media focus on the "news you can relate to" side and questions random people on the street about how they feel about everything and having journalists in the studio to "discuss" the issues instead of using experts! Those are far easier than actually inviting experts, researching stories further than he said/she said and actually bothering to work on a story from a new angle and with a more relevant focus (Random peoples uninformed feelings on a new law can actually make people less informed on the law in question! Glenn Beck ao. are random persons here...).

Re:

I can see conflating copyright and trademarks since copyright is used as an insurrance or even substitude in trademark cases, but patents are almost completely opposite of patents in the world of IPR and most people know that.

Actually copyright and patent are more similar to each other, with trademark having a different purpose and authorized by a completely different part of the Constitution.

Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 24th, 2013 @ 1:12pm

No one disputes the possibility random journos can screw up. But one of the things that supposedly gives mainstream news media credibility is layers of editors, fact checkers, legal departments. Which is why all responsibility for inaccuracies rests with AFP.

Law is for Lawyers

Outside our little Copyright War in this technology field then public ignorance between copyright and patents seems quite high. TechDirt have of course reported on this ignorance often when it comes to news services who should know better.

Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.

Re: Law is for Lawyers

Do you know the technical difference between burglary and robbery? Between murder and manslaughter? Which illegal actions are crimes and torts? Even if you do, do most people? Do they use those distinctions all the time?

As noted in a post above, is there a difference between the RIAA, the MPAA, and the record companies? Obviously there is and because Mike and the other authors here eat, sleep, and breathe their demonization they probably know the difference. But how many times does a commenter here get called out for conflating them? As long as they're all hated and the groupthink is satisfied, what's the difference?

Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Of course you should know the difference. And some large percentage of the time, some large percentage of the reporters in the world get it mostly right.

This article impugns the entire media organization as if this is some grand fucking systematic failure of the entire enterprise.

It is far more likely that some junior reporter put this in and the editorial staff was short handed because one person was on vacation and one person got sick the day this article hit the desk. Is that newsworthy?

This is the Techdirt mentality: if anyone in a big huge organization makes a mistake or does something stupid, it is cast as a failure of the whole organization, all of its leadership, and culture as a whole.

The plural of anecdote is not data. You have absolutely zero idea about how this mistake was made, who reviewed the article, how it slipped through the cracks, nothing. You have speculation at best. Yet you feel free to write a whole article of your own about it. So you don't need facts because why... they are "journalists" and you are just a blogger?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

News agencies take responsibility for all that goes out under their banner. When the story is wrong, the news organization responsible is the one that gets criticized. Doubly so with a wirefeed story that does not even carry the byline of an individual author, and is attributed to the agency as a whole.

Nothing in this post claims AFP is entirely in shambles -- it's just deservedly harsh criticism over a specific major error. And yes, a factual error in report is precisely "a systemic failure of the entire enterprise" because accurate reporting of the news is, explicitly and exactly, what the system of a news enterprise is set up to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

And yes, a factual error in report is precisely "a systemic failure of the entire enterprise" because accurate reporting of the news is, explicitly and exactly, what the system of a news enterprise is set up to do.

No, it's a single mistake. A systemic failure happens when you can demonstrate that the whole system has failed, and you sure as hell can't do that with a single mistake in a single article. Please get over yourself.

And do you really believe that is the singular purpose of a news organization? I am sure that is high on their list of priorities, but even the French government has been having trouble figuring out what AFP is and isn't, and should and shouldn't be. They can quote idealistic mission statements about exactitude all they want but the fact is that organizations are motivated by ideals AND money AND politics AND a desire for self-preservation AND egos AND practical constraints.

I can't believe I'm reading a Techdirt article where the squeaky-clean Disney's Main Street USA Edward R. Murrow-and-Walter Cronkite idealization of journalism as being a superhuman endeavor is being defended as fact.

If that's the case, maybe we should make Google subsidize all the newspapers!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Your argument is becoming very confused. We know that news organizations often fail to live up to the ideals of journalism, and the reason we criticize them for it is because we think those ideals are good, and because many (i'd say most) people involved in the actual editorial side of journalism, especially at an organization like AFP, think so too. There's no contradiction here... I support the ideals, and am critical when news agencies fail to live up to them.

Your position seems to be that because mistakes get made, we should give up on the ideals altogether... and yet you're the one accusing us of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think it's time for you to sit back and think about the side you've taken on this issue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

My position is that ideals are great, that occasional mistakes are not inconsistent with having ideals, and that Techdirt writers are once again blowing a tiny event (which they have effectively no insight into and have not investigated in the slightest) into a huge deal to put forth their own agenda...while denying it's about an anti-IP agenda and claiming it's really more about journalistic integrity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Do you know the technical difference between burglary and robbery? Between murder and manslaughter? Which illegal actions are crimes and torts? Even if you do, do most people? Do they use those distinctions all the time?

In some cases yes. In other cases, I think I do, but there's an excellent chance that my knowledge is imperfect or wrong. In other cases, nope.

In all cases, I expect the damn newspaper to be using the correct terms.

Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

That is a fine expectation. It's not just unrealistic, it is downright delusional especially to expect it to be true 100% of the time or anywhere close. Have you ever had anything you did personally reported upon? If not, it would be a real eye-opener for you. It's usually right in principle but rarely in the details, I've found.

Your sense of the importance of this incident is way way out of proportion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Have you ever been anywhere close to a working editor or journalist, or set foot in a respectable newsroom? If not, it would be a real eye-opener for you. The culture of journalism is not at all what you picture, and you'd be laughed out of the building for your "total accuracy is impossible and mistakes are no big deal" philosophy.

Yes, mistakes get made. And then they get pointed out. And the journalists who make the fewest mistakes rise to the top over time. There's no room for your laissez-faire attitude towards facts, and you'll find very little support for it among the very people you think you're defending.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law is for Lawyers

Techdirt reports all the time about how journalism is going in the toilet and was never that good to begin with. They certainly aren't drowning in all that increased revenue.

Again, you have zero idea of how this actually happened. The pot is awfully fervent about the kettle's blackness today. Why don't you call up the newsroom and talk to the principals involved? Are journalists the only ones who can do investigation?

Just for thought...

Rather than attempting to reply for the chain above, I thought that I would state my reason's on why this is a big deal in its own thread.

Lets start with the obvious. This is a news agency. I would be surprised if their entire business model does not revolve around copyright. Even if the writer doesn't know the difference (which I would be skeptical of) their editor should definitely know. News organizations usually do a pretty good job of making sure at least someone covering a topic (the writer or editor) understands the subject. For who ever speculated that the editor was on vacation, I am sure that someone was still supposed to review the article.

Next reason why its a big deal. The difference between patents and copyright (as I am sure most readers that frequent this site can tell you) is a minimum of 50 years. And that is assuming that the copyright holder dies the moment the copyright on the work comes into existence (also that you only look at the current written rules with no adjustments). Remember patents are 20 years, copyright creator life time plus 70 years. So next time you think there is no difference between the two, you should think what it would mean to you if a judge sentenced you to jail for life without prole instead of the 20 years you were supposed to get. I bet that would mean something different to you.

Same here, there is a tremendous time difference between the two. If its too confusing for people to understand the basic differences then I think that is an indication that they obviously need work. Also given that fact that nearly everyone on this planet is impacted on a daily basis by both of these concepts we should all have some understanding of the differences.

Think my statement above is laughable, you can't use the internet, watch tv, or listen to the radio without encountering copyright. And its getting hard to eat without swallowing someones patent. Use a cell phone, you are dealing with both.

So yea, I will repeat it again. It is a big deal. Newspapers have been complaining for years about all of the business that the internet has cost them, well, if they can't even get the basics correct how can we trust that they are reporting on the complicated.